The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Political Ammunition => Topic started by: CactusCarlos on February 11, 2013, 09:26:39 AM
-
For the past few years www.snopes.com has positioned itself, or others have labeled it, as the 'tell all final word' on any comment, claim and email. But for several years people tried to find out who exactly was behind snopes.com. Only recently did Wikipedia get to the bottom of it - kinda makes you wonder what they were hiding. Well, finally we know. It is run by a husband and wife team - that's right, no big office of investigators and researchers, no team of lawyers. It's just a mom-and-pop operation that began as a hobby.
David and Barbara Mikkelson in the San Fernando Valley of California started the Website about 13 years ago - and they have no formal background or experience in investigative research. After a few years it gained popularity believing it to be unbiased and neutral, but over the past couple of years people started asking questions who was behind it and did they have a selfish motivation? The reason for the questions - or skepticims - is a result of snopes.com claiming to have the bottom line facts to certain questions or issue when in fact they have been proven wrong. Also, there were criticisms the Mikkelsons were not really investigating and getting to the 'true' bottom of various issues. I can personally vouch for that complaint.
A few months ago, when my State Farm agent Bud Gregg in Mandeville hoisted a political sign referencing Barack Obama and made a big splash across the internet, 'supposedly' the Mikkelson's claim to have researched this issue before posting their findings on snopes.com. In their statement they claimed the corporate office of State Farm pressured Gregg into taking down the sign, when in fact nothing of the sort 'ever' took place.
The rest: http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/media/internet/news.php?q=1227232155
-
I write quite a bit and I write for a couple of newspapers. I follow 3 rules: 1) Accurate, 2) Timely, 3) Relevant.
I am try to live by Reagan's old axe: 'trust but verify"
I use snopes often, but if you want to be a good writer and I pride myself, you check and cross check and check again before you call it a fact. Snopes is often very wishy-washy, too many times the answer is well kinda, sorta, more or less true/false.
Snopes is worth a look, trust, BUT verify if you do not you will get burned by snopes
-
What's anyone's opinion of Truth or Fiction.com (http://www.truthorfiction.com/search.htm)
-
From my vantage point and experience: trust but verify, do that and you will not go wrong....
-
Jeeze, not this again.
The "Big secret' that took that writer weeks to track down is something most people could've dug up in 15 minutes on Google. A lot of people have a boner for Snopes because they're fairly clear that they don't think buy into Creationism, so there has been a big effort from that end of the ideological spectrum to paint them as some kind of ueber-conspiracy tool to manipulate fragile internet minds. Some people need to grow up and realize that you can't trust anything you find on the internet with unquestioning innocence. Personally, I've found them to be more accurate than the vast majority of the crap out there, but not unerring by any means...like Wiki, a useful tool for getting a big picture and an idea for further directions to take in researching an issue.
-
Jeeze, not this again.
The "Big secret' that took that writer weeks to track down is something most people could've dug up in 15 minutes on Google. A lot of people have a boner for Snopes because they're fairly clear that they don't think buy into Creationism, so there has been a big effort from that end of the ideological spectrum to paint them as some kind of ueber-conspiracy tool to manipulate fragile internet minds. Some people need to grow up and realize that you can't trust anything you find on the internet with unquestioning innocence. Personally, I've found them to be more accurate than the vast majority of the crap out there, but not unerring by any means...like Wiki, a useful tool for getting a big picture and an idea for further directions to take in researching an issue.
Wiki, the big drawback is that ANYONE can create a Wiki page for anything. In fact I have personally put some up for clients, if you want to put up one, its easy....TIP on wiki: the real gold in the hills is at the bottom of the page where they have links to REFS if any, if not be dubious at best. If they have links follow them...
-
Yeah, Oaks, exactly. In fact the Refs will also tell you two things without even going to them - (1) if there aren't any, there's a 1% chance that the page was written by a true expert and a 99% chance it's pure bullshit; (2) if all or almost all of them are from a particular philosophical/political/theological school of thought, you are probably looking at a fairly-well-researched version of exactly ONE side of a much-more-complicated subject.
-
Well, while you're at it, tell me if this one is fact.....Marines in inauguration parade were marching with disabled rifles.
http://www.examiner.com/article/disabled-marine-rifles-at-inauguration-signal-shift-administration-policy?CID=examiner_alerts_article
-
Well, while you're at it, tell me if this one is fact.....Marines in inauguration parade were marching with disabled rifles.
http://www.examiner.com/article/disabled-marine-rifles-at-inauguration-signal-shift-administration-policy?CID=examiner_alerts_article
They were. However, this is also nothing new. Has happened going back at least to the Carter administration.
-
Well, while you're at it, tell me if this one is fact.....Marines in inauguration parade were marching with disabled rifles.
http://www.examiner.com/article/disabled-marine-rifles-at-inauguration-signal-shift-administration-policy?CID=examiner_alerts_article
Complex answer:
1) According to the DHS report and the just released by West Point US military academy soldiers among others are prone to EXTREME RIGHT WING TERRORIST ACTS
2) Those appear to be M 14's and many of them are ONLY used for Parade duty and are rendered in op, this is not rare and has been the case for many years.
3) Finally, yes Obammy is not popular with ANYONE in the US that supports our Constitution, works for a living and is a maker not a taker so maybe they were removed just for this parade
-
Complex answer:
1) According to the DHS report and the just released by West Point US military academy soldiers among others are prone to EXTREME RIGHT WING TERRORIST ACTS
2) Those appear to be M 14's and many of them are ONLY used for Parade duty and are rendered in op, this is not rare and has been the case for many years.
3) Finally, yes Obammy is not popular with ANYONE in the US that supports our Constitution, works for a living and is a maker not a taker so maybe they were removed just for this parade
To reiterate:
They were. However, this is also nothing new. Has happened going back at least to the Carter administration.
Happened at an event that I participated in in 2008. GWB came to Ft Bragg for the 82d Division Review. All the troops standing on the field had bolts removed from rifles and springs and followers pulled from magazines.
-
The only thing Snopes is good for is non-political urban legends.
-
It can actually be good at times. You just have to verify the info.
I have used it to check those Bush, Obama, and Romney emails and Facebook post we see all the time, and it's accurate as any side research I did.
But that is just my 2 cents.
-
isn't this the group one of the many that have been directly linked to George Soros? Used to be even conservatives would cite snopes as a authorative source, but I rarely see that any more.
The only thing Snopes is good for is non-political urban legends.
Yes, and even worse, they ripped off the urban legends from that Utah professor's book.
-
It can actually be good at times. You just have to verify the info.
I agree. To their credit, they mostly post sources to their info.
-
I agree. To their credit, they mostly post sources to their info.
So does Wikipedia. :p
-
So does Wikipedia. :p
Any studies have shown Wikipedia to be more accurate than printed books like US World Book and Britannica because of the on the fly editing that can be done. Once a book is printed, you can't change it.
-
Any studies have shown Wikipedia to be more accurate than printed books like US World Book and Britannica because of the on the fly editing that can be done. Once a book is printed, you can't change it.
Until the next printing. I remember once buying a set of old encyclopedia from the thirties. Man has history changed, or at least the reporting of it. It is one of the things I worry most about with the current reliance on the internet and cloud for information. It can be changed or removed at a moments notice. How would you ever know? The Way Back Machine? It may just sound like paranoia but sometimes folks really are out to get ya. :lol:
-
Back during the 2010 election I was arguing with a liberal about FACTS regarding candidates. He would bring up a posting on Wiki and each time we went back to the posting it kept changing.
I think his mind was blown. :lmao:
-
Back during the 2010 election I was arguing with a liberal about FACTS regarding candidates. He would bring up a posting on Wiki and each time we went back to the posting it kept changing.
I think his mind was blown. :lmao:
I have watched Wiki wars before. :-)
Is there any connection between Wikipedia and Wikileaks?
-
Until the next printing. I remember once buying a set of old encyclopedia from the thirties. Man has history changed, or at least the reporting of it. It is one of the things I worry most about with the current reliance on the internet and cloud for information. It can be changed or removed at a moments notice. How would you ever know? The Way Back Machine? It may just sound like paranoia but sometimes folks really are out to get ya. :lol:
Rest easy. Blammo wants control of the Intetrnet. What could go wrong?
-
I have watched Wiki wars before. :-)
Is there any connection between Wikipedia and Wikileaks?
No.
-
...I think his mind was blown. :lmao:
If he's an average leftist, that wouldn't take much.
-
Jeeze, not this again.
The "Big secret' that took that writer weeks to track down is something most people could've dug up in 15 minutes on Google. A lot of people have a boner for Snopes because they're fairly clear that they don't think buy into Creationism, so there has been a big effort from that end of the ideological spectrum to paint them as some kind of ueber-conspiracy tool to manipulate fragile internet minds. Some people need to grow up and realize that you can't trust anything you find on the internet with unquestioning innocence. Personally, I've found them to be more accurate than the vast majority of the crap out there, but not unerring by any means...like Wiki, a useful tool for getting a big picture and an idea for further directions to take in researching an issue.
:cheersmate:
It's more than a bit befuddling that this epic illuminati "secret" has been held for so long.... Oh, wait... everyone's who even asked or spent 20 seconds Googling has know from the beginning. The couple post, or used to, on their own forum. They were also quite open and transparent about their research about everything. Hell, much of the "research" is a collaborative work of forum members there.
It was pretty humorous at times, back in the early 2000's or so when many of the fundamentalist creationist sites were trying to imply that Snopes was a freemason and devil worshipping site. Sigh, old memories of the good ol' days of the internet.
I really 'heart' how that writer mentions the much more credible source of Wiki, as being an investigator as well... Sigh, I think they failed da interweb...